Innovation
in
Curriculum Planning
As a teacher who has taught in the International Baccalaureate (IB) through the Middle Years Program (MYP) (Grade 6 - 10) and the Diploma Program (DP) (Grade 11 and 12), inquiry is at the heart of learning and acquiring knowledge. In my MYP Science classes we have unit questions which are explored with students and extended through project based learning. How the project based learning looked like depended on the topic and how I wanted to bring variety into my classes. This was determined and informed by my student’s needs and interests. This variety would be presented through my supporting frameworks. Science could be investigated further through self-interest in self-regulated learning, giving students autonomy over their learning through a flipped classroom, gaining perspective by reading like a historian, and create like a ‘maker’. Each element could support Fullan’s (2013) 6 C’s creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, citizenship, character, and communication, which also supports the 7 dimensions of inquiry as outlined by the Galileo Educational Network (2019). In cooperation with the inquiry framework, the critical thinking framework adds further depth by:
Inquiry and critical thinking is also at the heart and soul of Theory of Knowledge (TOK). In this course, I teach students to explore the question, ‘How do we know what we know?’ over the course of their time in the IB DP. Students engage in various means of learning and present their findings through self-regulated projects, flipped classroom situations, and reading like a historian to gain perspective. However, inquiry and critical thinking is at the core of this course which out weight the use of supporting frameworks. As Gini-Newman (2013) questions when he presented his graph, ‘What do we make students do to make learning real-real?’ or authentic really grabbed my attention since bringing ‘wonder’ into learning is important to me. It brings a sense of intrinsic motivation to why we want to learn. As a result of being both challenged and taking on a task where one is present brings one into ‘Flow’. Being in ‘flow’, results in deep learning and high levels of personal satisfaction. (Csíkszentmihályi, 2008) However, our students need to be in the ‘zone of proximal development’ according to Vygotsky. When thinking about authentic learning, connecting with one’s presence and having a balance of challenge and competency - I continue to ask myself as an educator what can I do to foster a plan which is well suited for my students learning, work on key competencies and be well supported emotionally? As a result, my aim will always be to achieve a level of rigour, but balanced with moments for professional reflection to remind myself why we do what we do as educators. References: Case, Roland. "Bringing Critical Thinking to the Main Stage." Edu Can 45.2 (Spr. 2005): n. pag. Wilson Web. Web. 14 July 2019. Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Fullan, M. (2013). Great to excellent: Launching the next stage of Ontario’s education agenda. Galileo Educational Network. (2019). What Is Inquiry? Retrieved from https://galileo.org/teachers/designing-learning/articles/what-is-inquiry/ Gini-Newman, G. (2017, October 27). Inspiring wonder through learning and thinking | Garfield Gini-Newman | TEDxKitchenerED. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBREL3VVbZI Harvard Project Zero. (2019, September 16). Visible Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.pz.harvard.edu/projects/visible-thinking According to social scientist and researcher Brenè Brown (2012), vulnerability is defined as emotional risk, exposure and uncertainty. Where vulnerability is our most accurate measurement of courage, and it is the act of letting ourselves be seen or to be honest. Vulnerability is the birthplace of innovation, creativity and change since you allow yourself to step forward and confront your inner self and transcend beyond what is considered ‘safe’. (Brown, 2012) My experimentation with learning about and using the Raspberry Pi (Rpi) has definitely been a learning curve, which had me feeling very vulnerable to begin with. It was something that I would not have chosen to take part in, since I haven’t had positive experiences with programming, hardware vs. software computer skills and digital making. I definitely took a risk to dig a bit deeper into and understand the inner workings of digital making without a strong background. However, by simply jumping in, I’m intrigued and want to learn more, as I see such potential in implementing digital making into the classroom. Over the course of three and a half weeks I bought my Raspberry Pi, learned about it’s uses, learned how to program with Scratch, learned how to program with Python, and started to do small projects using the GPIO header on the Raspberry Pi. I faced everything from frustration, joy, confusion to the feeling of success and satisfaction. There were a few realizations, that I would like to point out that at the end made a lot of sense to me. Particularly after going through some struggle and then figuring things out. #1 The Simplicity of the Raspberry Pi It’s pretty neat to get up close and personal with the device. Simply attach your monitor with an HDMI cable, a power source and you’re set to go. I see how this would be beneficial to support the use of this device in developing countries. However, I have to admit, I’m so used to having a portable device and with touch features, that it was a slight adjustment. I planned on attaching a small LCD touch screen, but was not able to connect it, as I would have liked too. It was taking too long for me to figure out how to attach and configure it to my Rpi. I thought it would be better to come back to it after a break and with a clearer mind. #2 The Digital Maker Continuum That’s right, there is a continuum that one goes through in order to become a ‘digital maker’. Starting off as a Creator, becoming a Builder, then a Developer, and finally a Maker. (Raspberry Pi Foundation, 2019) Each stage builds on skills and knowledge. The last time I did any kind of coding was in high school, and I stopped there which also stopped my progression into becoming a ‘Maker’. However, just through both personal and professional experiences the creator and builder was always in me. It was just a matter of time, practice and additional efforts to make the jump into becoming a developer and maker. For more information visit the Raspberry Pi Foundation. #3 Scratch is much more Visual than Python!As I tried out the different platforms for coding, I found that Scratch was much easier to learn, due to its visual nature. Python, on the other hand, was a challenge, but doable. I felt a bit nostalgic with Python, since it reminded me of Turtle, from the mid-1980s. I could see how Scratch would be a good scaffolding program to introducing and practicing simple to complex coding. In addition to this, it may be a bit more accessible to students with learning difficulties, due to the colour coding and visual coding shapes. With Python you are actually using specific language to code, which would require some instruction, time to learn and practice. However the challenges may have seemed, through trial and error and some direction from online projects - I was able to create a few pieces of evidence as shown in the images and videos below.
Through my feeling of vulnerability, I come out realizing the potential of what could be done with the Rpi. Is it for everyone? No. However, it could be used to promote computer science as a multidisciplinary tool “especially at a school level, and to put the fun back into learning computing” (Raspberry Pi Foundation, 2019). Most importantly, I feel, it is also essential to reference the 'Digital Maker' continuum. There is a process and educators should consider this while planning and integrating aspects of maker education into the curriculum. References:
Brown, B. (2012). Listening to Shame. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_listening_to_shame/up-next Raspberry Pi Foundation. (2017, January 23). The Raspberry Pi Foundation's Digital Making Curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/digital-making-curriculum/ Like with many, if not all things, there is always a side that is strongly for or against an idea or approach. As I sift through academic literature, I am faced with a myriad of positive examples and outcomes of implementing maker education into the curriculum. How can one ignore that there must be literature out there that is actually weary or sees issues with this curricular approach?
After all as Newton's third law goes: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. (The Physics Classroom, 2019) In the spirit of having a balanced approach to one’s perspective, it’s important to acknowledge the issues too in order to make content accessible to all learners. The following outline the main concerns around the integration of maker education:
Personally the one concern that stood out the most for me was the last one. Had I not taken the initiative to learn about the uses of the Raspberry Pi, and educate myself on physical and code computing, digital maker spaces would be a mystery for me. On the other hand, if makerspaces are to be integrated into a school environment, an effort needs to be placed on:
I believe as educators we are not ‘purists’ when it comes to planning. There is flexibility and insight on appropriate ways of integrating activities that would encourage critical thinking, creativity, STEM to STEAM, self-regulated learning, and understanding by design - to mention a few. That’s where the art of teaching comes in to create a balanced approach, where in our action there is an equal and opposite reaction which needs to consider the school, the class, but most importantly the individuality of our students. References: Baldwin, S. & Ching, YH. TechTrends (2017) 61: 589. https://doi-org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6 Godhe, A. (2019). Making sense of making: Critical issues in the integration of maker education into schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,1-12. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2019.1610040 Henderson, T. (2019). Newton's Third Law. Retrieved from https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law As I discover and explore my Raspberry Pi, I am humbled by how much there is to learn. To be honest, I’m quite overwhelmed by its potential, that I see the genius behind the making of this single board computer. The Raspberry Pi is so simple yet so complex in what it can do. Its versatility is amazing, but I can see how daunting it could be to someone who has no knowledge of its use or where to start. I am impressed by the positivity of the Raspberry Pi community, as observed over the past few weeks. The spirit of openly embracing collaboration and interest in one another's work is not only motivating as a beginner, but empowering. To be empowered is quite addictive, but sometimes it doesn’t come by so easily. When I think about the essence of the ‘Maker Movement’, it really isn’t about making stuff but connecting with your community, and problem solving issues. This brings a deeper dimension to core competences and Michael Fullan’s (2013) 6C’s (Collaboration,Communication, Citizenship, Creativity, Critical Thinking and Character). The Raspberry Pi is just a device, but what’s the device without purpose and intention? Shouldn’t we be thinking of ways to empower or students, but not just in taking action but making this action intentional and purposeful? The creators of the Raspberry Pi, The Raspberry Pi Foundation, is a UK-based charity that works to put the power of computing and digital making into the hands of people all over the world. They do this so that more people are able to harness the power of computing and digital technologies for work, to solve problems that matter to them, and to express themselves creatively. (Raspberry PI Foundation, 2019) However, I am also humbled by simple contributions, by various communities globally, that are having a big impact. Contributions such as the:
Technology doesn’t necessarily need to be high tech, but could also be low tech and have a lasting impact. However, it’s the source of the idea which is the driver of this impact. I find hearing the stories of where these ideas are born that brings meaning and wonder to the innovative idea. Many times it comes from the recognition and then the drive to take action...but not just the act of just doing, but purposeful and intentional action. References: Fullan, M. (2013). Great to excellent: Launching the next stage of Ontario’s education agenda. Raspberry Pi Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.raspberrypi.org/about/ WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). (2019). 10 Innovations that are Improving Lives. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/2017/ten_innovations.html Making mistakes or experiencing the dreadful word, feeling or act of failing is often, if not ever, looked upon as a positive. Educational institutions commonly don’t celebrate it nor is it discussed enough to see how mistakes or moments of “failing” are opportunities for growth, creative problem solving and innovation. Many times we stick to the rules, focus on test scores and grades to define success. After all this is what works and this is what’s easiest to follow and measure. There is a certain level of truth in this and I feel that this is also necessary. However, what’s always easy and familiar isn’t always the best measure of what can come out of a teachable moment or learning experience. Innovation is often defined as a process that produces something new and unique. (Tahirsylaj, 265) Additionally, a growing literature put the emphasis on the importance of failure towards success. The emphasis isn’t placed on failure itself, but on failure as a prerequisite for success. (Tahirsylaj, 265) According the Ruth Gunther McGrath, as published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR), there are seven principles that refer to “putting intelligent failure to work”:
References:
Leopold, T. (2012, January 28). The success of failure: Pulitzer winner's surprising road to the top. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/20/living/jennifer-egan-creativity-failure/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 Tahirsylaj, A. S. (2012). Stimulating creativity and innovation through Intelligent Fast Failure. Thinking Skills and Creativity,7(3), 265-270. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.05.005 I selected and evaluated 5 curricular frameworks against our group generated criterion for innovation. These 5 frameworks include:
I could not help but notice Garfield Gini-Newman graph and relate it to Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Vygotsky. As Gini-Newman questions when he presented his graph, ‘What do we make students do to make learning real-real?’. Maker education is all real and authentic. Csikszentmihalyi uses a similar graph, but factors in emotions and how finding flow supports innovation, as mentioned in his TED Talk in 2004. Finally Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, I ask my myself as an educator what can I do to foster a plan which is well suited for my students learning, work on key competencies and be well supported emotionally. With this in mind I rate these 5 frameworks in the following table in what I see as advantages and disadvantages. As I read through the varying frameworks, many of them have aspects which overlap into the other. Below in the table you will find how maker education fits into our innovation framework. As Jay McTighe, discussed in his video - 'Think big and start small' and this is how I feel about the maker movement. Initially thinking about it I actually feel a bit anxious as it's not exactly the framework that I would 'flourish' the most in. I'm more of a critical thinking or inquiry based kind of teacher. However, what I found most attractive about this framework is the high level of risk taking from both the teacher and student. In addition to this, there is autonomy to create which could lead to innovation. References: Case, Roland. "Bringing Critical Thinking to the Main Stage." Edu Can 45.2 (Spr. 2005): n. pag. Wilson Web. Web. 14 July 2019. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004, February). Flow, the secret to happiness. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow?language=en Davis, V. (2014, July 18). How the Maker Movement Is Moving Into Classrooms. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/maker-movement-moving-into-classrooms-vicki-davis Dougherty, D. (2012, June 04). Want To Improve Science Education? Let Kids Build Rockets and Robots Instead of Taking Standardized Tests. Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2012/06/maker-faire-and-science-education-american-kids-should-be-building-rockets-and-robots-not-taking-standardized-tests.html Edutopia. (2018, November 16). Maker Education. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/topic/maker-education Gini-Newman, G. (2017, October 27). Inspiring wonder through learning and thinking | Garfield Gini-Newman | TEDxKitchenerED. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBREL3VVbZI MakerEd. (2019). Maker Ed. Retrieved from https://makered.org/ McTighe, J. (2013, July 17). What is Understanding by Design? Author Jay McTighe explains. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/d8F1SnWaIfE Riverdale Country School & IDEO. The design process is what puts Design Thinking into Action. (2013, April). Retrieved from https://designthinkingforeducators.com/design-thinking/ Sage. (2017, June 08). What is Self-Regulated Learning? Retrieved from https://serc.carleton.edu/sage2yc/self_regulated/what.html Prior to delving into planning and developing an innovative mindset. It’s important to establish what is innovation or to be innovative really means. At times I struggle with this term, as discussed in Smith’s (2011) paper, ‘innovation was traditionally seen as the domain of the individual, more managerial approaches have led institutions to ‘coordinate innovation and strategic planning’. The definition of innovation, however, is not clear cut and understandings of how innovations spread and innovative practices should be supported differ. (Smith, 427) As a result, there could be a divide between the two - the institution vs. the individual - if what innovation really means in their context isn’t clarified. In addition to this, it is important to contextualize what innovation means in education. ‘Education is no guarantee of decency, prudence, or wisdom. More of the same kind of education will only compound our problems. This is not an argument for ignorance, but rather a statement that the worth of education must now be measured against the standards of decency and human survival. It is not education that will save us, but education of a certain kind.’ (Orr, 1996) With this in mind as a class we devised our own criterion based on scholarly articles on innovation. From these articles, we arrived to 9 criterion which would need to be addressed over the duration of our course. Below you will find a document of my initial thoughts on where I stand in each criterion. I personally think that innovation is not something that is achieved, but it’s an ongoing quality one works on inwardly and outwardly...personally and professionally. Before closing off on this post for today, there is a section of David Orr’s essay on ‘What is Education for?”, which is worth sharing and keeping in mind our impact as educators. As Elie Wiesel pointed out at the 1990 Global Forum in Moscow: “That the designers and perpetrators of the Holocaust were the heirs of Kant and Goethe. In most respects the Germans were the best educated people on Earth, but their education did not serve as an adequate barrier to barbarity. What was wrong with their education? In Wiesel’s words: "It emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience." (Orr, 1996) References:
Smith, K. (2011). Cultivating innovative learning and teaching cultures: a question of garden design. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 427—438. Orr, D. What is education for? Six myths about the foundations of modern education, and six new principles to replace them. Retrieved from: https://www.context.org/iclib/ic27/ |